§ The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness)I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, after the word "Goole," to insert the words:
but not including the Murrain Lane drain outfall sluice.The property of the Aire and Calder Navigation will be excluded from the authority on the new Board, but the Murram Lane drain has an outfall sluice running through their property, which should be under the control of the Board, and I move this Amendment to provide for that.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSI beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out paragraph (6).
The short point with regard to this Amendment is this: The Doncaster area is a very low-lying area, which is in danger of submergence owing to mining subsidence, and so urgent is the question of drainage in this area that the Royal 1854 Commission which dealt with the larger problem recommended that a special Commission be set up to deal exclusively with this area. In the midst of a fairly considerable area, all of which sooner or later will be undermined, one comparatively small portion is left out of the suggested area which is to be under the control of the Central Board. We think that there ought to be no exception at all, or that, should there be an exception, the exceptions ought to be considerably extended beyond the references made in paragraph (b). The Hatfield Moors Drainage Award in 1925 placed certain responsibilities upon the allottees for the repair and maintenance of various drains, and we think that those liabilities ought to remain. Obviously, if one small portion of a considerable area is eliminated from a large scheme like this, the chances are that, when mining subsidence takes place ultimately, the areas surrounding the excepted area may be called upon to carry the overflow water from that area, which, possibly, would endanger the social amenities and the health of the people in the adjacent areas. Moreover, we think that some part of the liability which ought to rest upon the shoulders of allottees, under the Award to which I have referred, would be escaped by them. I think the best and shortest argument that one could submit in favour of the deletion of this paragraph would be to refer to the Report of the Royal Commission, which went thoroughly into this 1855 question, and one of the members of which, by the way, was the engineer of the boring company, who pressed very hard to secure the exclusion of this particular area. The fact that this gentleman, Mr. Tomlinson, who was a member of the Commission, and who spoke for the boring company, was unable to persuade the Commission to support the exclusion of this area, is no justification for rejecting this Amendment. The Commission say:
We recognise that, other things being equal, there is nothing to be gained by expending money in draining land which, when drained, will be of no agricultural or other value. At the same time we do not feel that we have sufficient detailed knowledge of the area to enable us to say what particular parts in it are not worth draining, and could, without prejudice to health or other interests, be left undrained after subsidence. We therefore hesitate to make any specific recommendation in regard to Hatfield Moors"—that is the point to which I am referring—but we are confident that the Drainage Court and the local drainage authorities will deal with questions such as those raised in regard to Hatfield Moors in a commonsense manner, and that if they are satisfied that no advantage will be gained by drainage works in a particular area and that no harm will result from it being left undrained after subsidence, will not insist on remedial works in respect of that area.That report was signed by the engineer of the boring company, which has always sought to have this area excluded from any large drainage scheme. We agree with the Commission when they say that if no beneficial results can accrue from draining land adjacent which is not likely to be useful for agricultural, or indeed for other purposes, the Central Board would act in a commonsense way and not impose unnecessary duties on the Drainage Commissioners. For that reason and the reasons of health and the general amenities in the adjacent areas, we think this paragraph ought to be eliminated.
§ Mr. GUINNESSThe question of health really does not arise. The proposal is to leave out merely those areas that are used for the purpose of the extraction of peat. They will get no benefit from drainage. I cannot accept the Amendment because I am sure the proper course is to adopt the provisions of the West Riding of Yorkshire Act, which this Bill largely replaces.
§ Mr. PALINGIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of health is one of the main questions that has-been taken into consideration? Is he aware that in the Commission's report that question dominates almost every other? In most of these areas huge populations are growing and big housing schemes are being carried out. On this moor which it is proposed to exclude, a colliery company has sunk a bore hole. If a colliery is established, there will be a housing scheme, and these people will be in the same position as all the other housing schemes and collieries in the neighbourhood. Why they have seen fit to exclude Hatfield Moor passes my comprehension, except that it is a fact that one of the persons responsible for the boring of this bore hole, and I believe an official of the colliery company that intends sinking a pit there, was the Member for the Division. We who know the district and have studied the maps do not see why an area surrounded by other land which is to be drained in similar circumstances should be left over. The only excuse is that this is a peat area from which peat will be extracted on the surface, and even so, after the peat has been extracted, if the land is any use for anything, and apparently it is, in the opinion of some of them, the area shall come into drainage if they think fit. If they do not, it will be left as a swamp. It is bound to be a swamp. As seam after seam of coal is taken out and there is subsidence, it will get below sea level. Is not that likely to be a menace to health and a danger to the surrounding districts? That is one of the main reasons why the Commission have gone into the business, and why they are suggesting the exclusion of this moor under these circumstances passes any comprehension. It is very foolish indeed. The right hon. Gentleman would have been wise to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. GUINNESSReally, the hon. Gentleman's arguments are not convincing. There may be a great deal of housing. If housing takes place in any part of this moor it would cease to be used for the extraction of peat, and therefore would be liable to be brought in. If it is fit for any other purpose, including housing, it comes in, and while it is not used for any other purpose than 1857 the extraction of peat there is really no cause to bring it in.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSThe remarks of the right hon. Gentleman are equally unconvincing. The Amendment made in Committee, which included paragraphs (c) and (d), disposed of the argument he submits. We know that the British Company are operating on a portion of this land. We do not object to that portion being excluded while work is taking place for the purpose named. When sooner or later, as my hon. Friend suggests, a pit is sunk and coal begins to be drawn it is going to be a menace. The greater question is, that not only the immediate area but the adjacent areas will have to bear a burden which ought to be borne by the whole of the area. The engineer of the boring company, which for ten, twenty or fifty years may demand so much for every ton of coal produced, has sought to exclude this area because they did not want to take their share of the draining of that particular area. The right hon. Gentleman ought to see the wisdom, since he wants to see the Doncaster area properly drained, of making that exception and allowing the area to be drained as it ought to be drained in years to come.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. PALINGI beg to move, in page 2, line 21, to leave out the words "as amended by any subsequent enactments."
The purpose of this Amendment is really to protest against the method adopted in this Bill. In order to understand what is going to be done and why it is going to be done, one has to make references to I do not know how many different Acts. I think it is almost impossible for the ordinary person to understand how this is going to be done, and when. We have gone into the business thoroughly, and it has taken hours of research to get to know how it is going to be done, because we have had to look up so many Acts. We protest against this. We think that this Clause could have been made much simpler. We object to legislation by reference.
§ Mr. GUINNESSThe hon. Member suspects a nefarious purpose which does 1858 not exist. It is common form in all these Acts to make a saving for subsequent enactments, and it is for the general convenience. There is a volume of general drainage law which is applied in these Bills. That law must be kept up-to-date, and we hope shortly to make some fundamental changes which will be for the benefit of drainage areas as a whole. These changes and any modifications which are found to fit into the general interests ought to be applied to all drainage authorities. It is usual to provide that the law should be kept up-to-date by the application of any general legislation which might afterwards be passed.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSThe right hon. Gentleman tells us the same old story in regard to legislation by reference. He intends to appoint 26 ordinary men or women to constitute the Central Board. Surely it is the duty of the Minister to legislate in such a clear way that an ordinary man or woman charged with the duty of becoming a drainage commissioner should be able to understand the legislation referring to this particular undertaking. We are referred to the Drainage Act, 1861, as amended by any subsequent enactments, which means that a member of the Central Drainage Board must refer to the Act of 1861, to the Act of 1918, to the West Riding Act of 1923, the Drainage Act, 1926, and also the Act of 1929. This is legislation by reference, gone mad. If the members of the Central Board are to be as useful as we all desire they should be, the right hon. Gentleman ought, in clear language, to draw from previous legislation an understanding of what is meant, and enable the Committee to do their duty without having to turn to so many Acts of Parliament.
§ Mr. PALINGAm I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman intends, shortly, to embody the whole of these Acts in one?
§ Mr. GUINNESSWe do not think that the existing drainage laws are up-to-date, and we intend drastically to modify them.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.